Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
not elected to raise either rates or revenues. they were elected as a check and balance against president obama's reckless deficits and his reckless debt. they were elected to stop the explosive growth of government. the republicans were elected and sent to washington to fight for limited government, balanced budgets, and of course, greater liberty for all the american people. at this moment it seems like they are only offering a democratic light version for america. maybe they need to learn a thing or two from president obama. maybe they need to show a willingness to go over the so-called fiscal cliff. now, if the president really wants to take the country there, maybe they need to let him go there. here's the bottom line. what are we hearing from the white house? we're hearing the president will not negotiate unless taxes are raised on job creators, and we're hearing that the president now wants to seize control of the debt ceiling from congress. well, that means rather than needing the approval of the house was the senate to raise the nation's spending limit, president barack obama wan
as dependency on government grows and they like you dependent on them. usually after an election there is a period where good governing can occur, but not with this president. this has become a never ending campaign 24/7 of dividing america. if you're critical of susan rice for giving the nation false advise on libya, yo you are a racest and you hate women. the first step in saving america is to recognize that the greedy and selfish people live in washington, and if americans finally see the simple truth, we can save america for future generations. joining me now with his thoughts is fox news contributor and, of course, syndicated columnist charles krauthammer. why is it we never hear about greedy washington politicians? >> well because as you say, people define greed as sort of the a private quality. the idea that you're spending other people's money is considered norma noble and comps nat. that's how you define compassionate conservetism in the bush years. you come up with programs in africa or the prescription drug benefit. that's a demonstration of compassion. it's actually a
the election based on that explicit proposal. >> and the house from their election -- the house won their election to stop him. the house also won, lanny. >> 535 congressional districts, most of which have little opposition, exain capture be cao voting for president. >> they did not vote to give him a rubber stamp. >> to go back to your question, 98% tax cut. by the way, john kennedy cut taxes to bracket about twice where we are today, so it's really apples and oranges, but ronald reagan is responsible for the greatest tax increase in american history, and joined with tip o'neill in raising taxes on social security in order to make it solvent. let's not talk about ronald reagan as being anti-taxes. >> your facts are off. patrick j. buchanan was in that white house. the the rates went from 70 to 28% during his presidency, true or false, sir. >> true. it went from 70 and then it went down to 50 and then it went to 28%. i was there on the plane when we got word that we had a deal to cut to 28% and i said take it. let me add one point, sean. i was looking over my editorials from 1962 ju
other than abc news. yes, it turns out that in the three weeks following the election the net woul network cd obama's favorite issue which is raising taxes 17 times more than spending cuts, and all told, 10 minutes and 18 seconds were devoted to taxes. compared to a whopping 35 seconds of air time on house spending cuts might be a useful tool in actually tackling our debt. not surprisingly, that trend was-mile-an-hou mirrored all across the major networks. here with reaction to that report and obama's parent indifference to the approaching so-called fist colorad fist fisk stein. welcome to hannity. >> great to be with you, sir. >> i'm getting the feeling more and more every day. he wants to humiliate the republicans. >> i this is an opportunity to drive a stake through the republican party. i think his strategy all along, i said this in my book, so it's weird to see it coming true so literally is to establish 25% of gdp as the new baseline for federal spending. he needs everybody's taxes to go up, not just warren's buffett's. he can do that two ways. he can get john boehner to capi
and his constituents. there is not a single republican who campaigned on the theme that if elected i'll raise your taxes $800 billion. every single -- >> and make it about spending. >> and every single republican who ran for congress vowed to his constituents to hold the line on taxes and to fight to reduce spending. this just isn't honoring that. >> let's speak of grover e runs america for tax reform, doesn't believe in tax increases but the media, he's not elected, why would anyone listen to them? watch this. >> speaking of the fiscal cliff there's been all the focus on one dangerous man who stands in the way that to avert it, grover norquist. he is hereto elected nor has he ever run for office so why is washington so scared of him? >> it's also politically smart to cut the knees out from under grover norquist. this guy, who is he? >> one dangerous man, cut the knees out from under him? because he gave candidates an opportunity to sign a tax pledge. they signed it. >> two quick points. number one, a person who stands in the way of a victory by the left is a dangerous man by definit
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)